:bravo: Zing! Well said.
Right, I’ll take my sorry ass off to sci-fi then.
[quote=“Jaboney”]:bravo: Zing! Well said.
Right, I’ll take my sorry ass off to sci-fi then.[/quote]
What part of “Fred has cornered the market for rosey projections” did you not understand?
Well I looked up the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act online spook, and it appears that it was signed into law by President Clinton in 2000, as a way to close the loophole that previously allowed contractors to get away with crimes outside the US. In other words, US federal courts can try contractors for committing what would be considered felonies if they were committed in the US. I found no articles that state MEJA grants immunity to contractors from local law. So I think you’re wrong on this one. Also, I heard a legal expert on NPR yesterday afternoon who said the US may try and argue that CPA Order 17 still applies, even though it was “supposed” to end once the official government of Iraq was formed. He said that if contractors can be tried in local courts, then it’s a short step to trying soldiers, and the US would never allow that.
I found a useful piece from Human Rights Watch on this issue:
[quote]Q&A: Private Military Contractors and the Law
States have an obligation to prosecute perpetrators of war crimes in their courts
Private military contractors (also known as privatized military firms) provide a range of services to the U.S. armed forces in the United States and abroad. These services include preparing meals for soldiers, driving supply trucks, providing military training, acting as security guards, and, as recently reported, conducting interrogations in detention facilities. Although the military use of contractors in the field dates back to the Revolutionary War, the U.S. military in recent years has greatly increased its deployment of private military contractors. As many as 20,000 contractors are currently believed to be in Iraq.
Recent reports of abuse by military contractors raises a number of important legal issues under both international and U.S. law.
[color=blue]What is the status under international law of private military contractors during a military occupation?[/color]
The 1949 Geneva Conventions distinguish between members of the armed forces (combatants) and civilians. Contractors are considered to be civilians authorized to accompany the force in the field. As such they generally cannot be the intentional object of military attack. They are however often at greater risk of becoming “collateral damage” because of their frequent presence in or near military targets, such as army bases. Contractors may lose their legal protection if they are used in direct support of military operations; in such cases they would become subject to direct attack so long as they directly participated in the hostilities.
[color=blue]Can a contractor be responsible for committing war crimes?[/color]
Civilians can commit war crimes, which are serious violations of the laws of war (including “grave breaches” of the Geneva Conventions). Torture and the inhuman treatment of prisoners are recognized as war crimes under the Geneva Conventions, as well as under customary laws of war. States have an obligation to prosecute perpetrators of war crimes in their courts; states are also obligated to punish perpetrators of war crimes no matter what their nationality or where the crime was committed. Whatever the level of individual responsibility, the state with authority over the military contractor remains responsible under international law for the contractor’s actions. That is, the United States cannot avoid its international legal obligations to ensure that prisoners are properly treated by hiring contractors.
[color=blue]Can U.S. contractors in Iraq be prosecuted under domestic (Iraqi) law?[/color]
Licensed contractors with the U.S. government reportedly sign agreements that provide them with immunity from prosecution under Iraqi law. This is probably consistent with U.S. powers as an occupying power under the Hague Regulations of 1907 and the Geneva Conventions.
However, crimes of “universal jurisdiction” – that is, crimes so serious, such as war crimes and torture, that any state has the right to prosecute them – are not protected by immunity agreements. Such crimes could be prosecuted by Iraqi courts.
[color=blue]Can contractors be prosecuted under U.S. military law?[/color]
U.S. civilians can only be tried by U.S. courts-martial during a declared war. As a U.S. military field manual states:
Contractor employees are not subject to military law under the UCMJ [Uniform Code of Military Justice] when accompanying US forces, except during a declared war. Maintaining discipline of contractor employees is the responsibility of the contractor’s management structure, not the military chain of command.
[color=blue]Can contractors be prosecuted under U.S. federal law? [/color]
Contractors may be prosecuted, depending on the offense. Military contractors who are U.S. nationals could be prosecuted by a U.S. federal court under the U.S. War Crimes Act of 1996 (18 U.S.C. 2441). The act defines a war crime as any grave breach of the 1949 Geneva Conventions (such as torture or inhuman treatment) or any violation of common article 3 of the Geneva Conventions (which not only includes torture, but also “outrages upon personal dignity” and “humiliating and degrading treatment”). Penalties include fines or imprisonment for life or any term of years, and the death penalty if death results to the victim.
Contractors, such as those serving as military interrogators, could also be prosecuted under the federal anti-torture statute (18 U.S.C. 2340), which prohibits torture by anyone who commits an act of torture outside of the United States. A person found guilty under the act can be incarcerated for up to 20 years or receive the death penalty if the torture results in the victim’s death.
Contractors working for the Department of Defense might also be prosecuted under the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-778), known as MEJA. MEJA was enacted in 2000 primarily to protect U.S. soldiers and their dependents on U.S. bases abroad, who became victims of crimes committed by military contractors with effective immunity from prosecution.
MEJA permits the prosecution in federal court of U.S. civilians who, while employed by or accompanying U.S. forces abroad, commit certain crimes. Generally, the crimes covered are any federal criminal offense punishable by imprisonment for more than one year. MEJA authorizes Defense Department law enforcement personnel to arrest suspected offenders and specifies procedures for the transfer of accused individuals to the United States.
Prosecutions under the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act would be handled by federal civilian authorities. The MEJA has not fully been tested in part because the Defense Department had not issued implementing regulations required by the law. However, at least two cases were brought under the MEJA prior to such regulations went into effect on September 29, 2004. In July 2004, the first prosecution under the MEJA ended in a mistrial after jurors became deadlocked in the case of a Southern California woman who admitted to stabbing to death her Air Force sergeant husband in Turkey.
On June 17, 2004, a federal grand jury indicted David Passaro, a contractor working for the CIA, for committing acts of torture in Afghanistan. Passaro was indicted for assault with a dangerous weapon at a U.S. army base near the town of Asadabad in Afghanistan. As MEJA does not provide jurisdiction over non-Defense Department contractors, the government asserted jurisdiction on the basis of Title 18, section 7(9)(A) of the U.S. code, which extends federal jurisdiction to U.S. “diplomatic, consular, military or other U.S. government missions or entities in foreign states, including the buildings, parts of buildings, and land appurtenant or ancillary thereto or used for purposes of those missions or entities, irrespective of ownership.”
Other contractors could be prosecuted in federal courts on the basis that the alleged act took place on a U.S. military base abroad. Many of the contractors working in Iraq worked for companies that had contracts not with the Defense Department, but with the Department of the Interior.[/quote]
It appears that contractors are immune to Iraqi law, as are soldiers, with the exceptions of war crimes and torture. This is consistent with international law per the Hague Regulations and Geneva Conventions. Contractors are also immune from prosecution by US military courts because Congress has not formally declared war. However, courtesy of MEJA, they are not immune from prosecution from US federal courts for crimes that carry a punishment of one year or more. So the idea of contractors running around immune from any punishment is a myth. Per international law they are immune from local courts, but per MEJA they are not immune from US federal courts. If anyone disagrees I’d like to hear your argument.
[quote=“NYT”]A preliminary Iraqi report on a shooting involving an American diplomatic motorcade said Tuesday that Blackwater security guards were not ambushed, as the company reported, but instead fired at a car when it did not heed a policeman’s call to stop, killing a couple and their infant.
The report, by the Ministry of Interior, was presented to the Iraqi cabinet and, though unverified, seemed to contradict an account offered by Blackwater USA that the guards were responding to gunfire by militants. The report said Blackwater helicopters had also fired. The Ministry of Defense said 20 Iraqis had been killed, a far higher number than had been reported before.
In a sign of the seriousness of the standoff, the American Embassy here suspended diplomatic missions outside the Green Zone and throughout Iraq on Tuesday.[/quote]We get typhoon days, the State Dept gets Blackwater days?
The entire State Dept has fewer people than the military has band members, and enjoys little luck getting people to serve in such hardship/hopeless postings as Iraq. That probably makes political progress difficult enough without adding this kind of snafu.
Some information that might be of interest to those genuinely looking for background on this situation:
Blackwater License (Now With 30% More Update!)
comments section is rather interesting:
[quote]“Oh shut the fuck up, you murderous mercenary. You have no right to open your stinky mouth and complain. Insurgents or not, you have no right to be in their country. You should all be rotten corpses hanging on a bridge in Iraq.”[/quote]…Jaboney?
Can’t be me, the tone’s all wrong.
Perhaps someone from a more sensible branch of your own family tree, TC?
Some further info on Sundays incident and an AAR (After Action Report) on the shootings:
Well I looked up the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act online spook, and it appears that it was signed into law by President Clinton in 2000, as a way to close the loophole that previously allowed contractors to get away with crimes outside the US. In other words, US federal courts can try contractors for committing what would be considered felonies if they were committed in the US. I found no articles that state MEJA grants immunity to contractors from local law. So I think you’re wrong on this one. . . . [/quote]
I don’t claim to definitively know whether the MEJA effectively grants immunity from Iraqi law to security contractors. I’m not sure anyone really definitively knows what the facts of legal jurisdiction are. The private security industry trade group which Blackwater belongs to, the International Peace Operations Association, appears to believe the primary legal authority they answer to in Iraq is the MEJA though:
"AMY GOODMAN: Doug Brooks, we tried to get Blackwater on; they didn’t respond to emails or calls. But who does Blackwater answer to? Under what laws do they operate?
DOUG BROOKS: Well, essentially, they’re contracted by the US government, so they can be held accountable contractually. They can be penalized contractually. Their contract can be revoked. After that, you have individual-level accountability. And at this point, they are now under UCMJ, but they’re also under MEJA, the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act, which essentially says that a person working for a contractor can be brought back to the United States and tried for a felony. Interestingly, it also applies to other nationalities, not including local nationals. So there’s that clause, as well."
– Doug Brooks, president IPOA
uhhh…Doug Brooks…IPOA?
International Peace Operations Associations…PeaceOps.com
“While IPOA acts as a trade association, it was not founded by members of the industry, but rather by individuals with backgrounds in the non-governmental, academic and business sectors who recognized the benefits brought by the private sector to the victims of conflict. Amongst them, Doug Brooks is the President and a founding member of IPOA.”
Spook - its absolute BS to quote this guy as an unbiased source in this episode.
IPOA Stff and backgreound
Strangely enough, I was unable to easily find evidence that Blackwater was a member of this group nor their presence meaningfully mentioned
added:
Blackwater may be represented by a Danielle Morrison who is on the IPOA "membership committee’ for the last year or so. However this is a rather ambiguous listing that hardly constitutes a meaningful position in this group. Ms Morrison, if she exists, may well not even be aware of this listing.
[quote=“TainanCowboy”]uhhh…Doug Brooks…IPOA?
International Peace Operations Associations…PeaceOps.com
“While IPOA acts as a trade association, it was not founded by members of the industry, but rather by individuals with backgrounds in the non-governmental, academic and business sectors who recognized the benefits brought by the private sector to the victims of conflict. Amongst them, Doug Brooks is the President and a founding member of IPOA.”
Spook - its absolute BS to quote this guy as an unbiased source in this episode.
IPOA Stff and backgreound
Strangely enough, I was unable to easily find evidence that Blackwater was a member of this group nor their presence meaningfully mentioned.[/quote]
Don’t be a doofus.
Spook -
Please see my update.
Have you read about how these guys are handling themselves? Speeding motorcades through the streets, emptying weapons on civilians who get too close, and generally carrying on like it is a wild west freeforall that they get paid 100k a year to do.
fuck them.
Who’s going to do their job? Pay Iraqis 100k a year and you’ll find LOTS of loyal able bodied men and women. Glory or money? You think Iraqis are so different?[/quote]
Actually, it’s 200k
blackwaterusa.com/employment … ialist.asp
[quote=“TainanCowboy”]Spook -
Please see my update.[/quote]
Blackwater is one of the founding members of the IPOA. See page two of the current JIPO trade journal.
[quote=“TainanCowboy”]Spook -
Please see my update.[/quote]
Blackwater is one of the founding members of the IPOA. See page two of the current JIPO trade journal.
"Press Release
MEJA and UCMJ Roundtable
March 6, 2007
In partnership with Congressmen David Price (D-NC) and Christopher Shays (R-CT) the International Peace Operations Association (IPOA) on February 27th held a roundtable on Capitol Hill, Ensuring Contractor Accountability in Complex Contingency Operations: UCMJ, MEJA and the Way Forward. The event broke new ground in assessing legal realities and devising solutions for enhancing accountability and transparency for U.S. contractors providing services in conflict and post-conflict environments.
Congressmen Price and Shays have been at the forefront of the issue of contractor accountability and have been proactively working to design practical and effective legislation to address the issues that have arisen in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere. Rep. Shays put the need for contractor accountability in context by explaining that the U.S. Military cannot succeed in Iraq without utilizing the services and capacities of the private sector. IPOA members are committed to ethics, responsibility and professionalism in the field, and as such fully support the establishment of a clear legal framework for coherent regulation of the industry.
A surprisingly broad consensus was reached by all participants regarding the overwhelming difficulties that will accompany any attempt to apply the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) to the contractor community. Kathleen Duignan, of the National Institute of Military Justice, pointed out that UCMJ cannot be viewed as a “quick fix” to problems of contractor accountability, noting that, “UCMJ has a tortured history in its extension to civilians.” Legal precedent on the application of UCMJ to civilians has demonstrated a clear unwillingness on the part of the Supreme Court to subject non-military persons accompanying the force to military law jurisdiction. The other panel participants, Brig. Gen. Charles Tucker, Karri Garrett, Scott Greathead, and Michael Love generally agreed that it is likely that any trial of private contractors under UCMJ would produce a similar constitutional challenge. Numerous additional issues were raised related to the nationality of contractors, contract law conflicting with military orders and other concerns.
The Transparency and Accountability in Security Contracting Act of 2007 (H.R. 369), co-sponsored by Rep. Price and Rep. Shays, was also discussed during the roundtable. This bill seeks to reaffirm the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act (MEJA) as the legal document most appropriate for dealing with crimes committed by contractors in the field and suggests actions to enhance its efficacy. IPOA agrees that the most cogent approach to ensuring greater contractor accountability in the battle space is to further enhance MEJA by providing resources and support for the Department of Justice and Department of Defense."
Its a “Peace & Justice” group Spook. Nothing more.
“See page two of the current JIPO trade journal.”
Got link? And why?
[quote=“TainanCowboy”]Its a “Peace & Justice” group Spook. Nothing more.
“See page two of the current JIPO trade journal.”
Got link? And why?[/quote]
Blackwater USA
“IPOA is a collection of private firms who have formed a coalition to support those in need of peace and security across the globe. IPOA members publicly avow to follow a stringent code of ethics and employ sound, transparent business practices. We provide each other with networking and business opportunities and we help to educate policy and decision makers on the value that the private sector brings in securing peace and security around the world.”
Spook -
Thats pretty much verbatim of the IPOA mission statement I posted on page 5 of this thread. Its called a “boiler plate” statement.
I join your group because you ask me to and it looks good for my company. I give a ‘testimonial’ that echoes your ‘mission statement.’
Its the way things work Spook.
Until proven otherwise, my money says “1900 L Street, NW | Suite 320 | Washington, D.C. 20036” is nothing more than a mail drop or a “rent-a-secretary” service.
But thanks for getting the thread off topic as usual with your left-field diversions into spooks world.
Now that it’s been made clear who’s in charge in Iraq, Blackwater’s back on the beat. [quote=“BBC”]The US security firm Blackwater has resumed limited operations in the Iraqi capital Baghdad four days after a deadly shootout involving the company.
The company provides security to all US state department employees in Iraq.
It had been ordered by the Iraqi government too halt operations while a joint US-Iraqi inquiry was held.
A US embassy spokeswoman said the decision to allow Blackwater to resume work had been taken in consultation with the Iraqi government.
The spokeswoman, Mirembe Nantongo, said Blackwater operations would be limited to essential missions only outside Baghdad’s heavily-fortified Green Zone.[/quote]
[color=blue]I wonder if Blackwater got its “license” back. 
They must be having a good laugh about that down at Blackwater headquarters.[/color]
"Armed Guards in Iraq Occupy a Legal Limbo
WASHINGTON, Sept. 19 — The shooting incident involving private security guards in Baghdad on Sunday that left at least eight Iraqis dead has revealed large gaps in the laws applying to such armed contractors.
Early in the period when Iraq was still under American administration, the United States government unilaterally exempted its employees and contractors from Iraqi law.
Last year, Congress instructed the Defense Department to draw up rules to bring the tens of thousands of contractors in Iraq under the American laws that apply to the military, but the Pentagon so far has not acted. Thus the thousands of heavily armed private soldiers in Iraq operate with virtual immunity from Iraqi and American law.
There have been numerous cases of killings or injuries of Iraqi civilians by employees of private military contractors, including Blackwater USA, the company involved in the shooting on Sunday.
Last December, a Blackwater gunman was reported, during an argument, to have killed a bodyguard for Vice President Adel Abdul Mahdi.
He was whisked out of the country and has not been charged with any crime, said Peter W. Singer, a Brookings Institution scholar who has written extensively about contractors in Iraq.
On Wednesday, Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki of Iraq complained of killings of Iraqis “in cold blood” by American armed contractors. He said Sunday’s shooting was the seventh such case involving Blackwater. Iraq’s government is threatening to throw Blackwater out of the country, a move that would have a striking impact on American operations inside the country. . . .
Even the trade association representing armed contractors called for new regulations to rein in contractors who abuse Iraqi civilians or violate the terms of their contracts with the United States government. “If you’re going to be outsourcing this much of our war-fighting capability, you have to have appropriate oversight,” said Doug Brooks, president of the International Peace Operations Association, which represents private military contractors including Blackwater. . . . "
A snippet from todays news:
[quote]Iraqi: Blackwater’s absence poses threat
Published: 23, 2007 at 4:55 PM
BAGHDAD, 23 (UPI) – An Iraqi government official says the absence of the Blackwater U.S. security contractor could pose a significant security threat to Iraq.
Iraqi government official Tahseen Sheikhly said if the company is thrown out of Iraq for allegedly killing Iraqi civilians, the country’s security would be placed at risk, the Voice of America reported Sunday.
“If this company left, it would leave a security vacuum, because foreign embassies and companies depend on protection by this company,” Sheikhly said. “If they left immediately there would be a security vacuum that will demand pulling some troops that work in the field.”
Sheikhly’s comments came as the Iraqi government moved ahead with its plans to charge several Blackwater guards in deadly shootings earlier this month that left 11 people dead.
CNN said Sunday that Iraqi officials intend to file criminal charges against the guards within a week.
It is unclear how the criminal proceedings will play out since U.S. State Department officials contend Iraq has no authority over Blackwater and other private security firms hired by the U.S. government.
UPI.com[/quote]